In 1709 (or was it 1710?) the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all. To contact the 1709 Blog, email Eleonora at eleonorarosati[at]gmail.com

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

US copyright law needs serious attention from Congress and the courts

Richard Posner,
the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal Judge who recently ruled in the MyVidster
case that linking to infringing content is not an infringement of copyright
in the US, has expressed concern on his blog
that "that both patent and copyright protection, though particularly
the former, may be excessive". Posner writes that the protection offered
by copyright law is too extensive, particularly in relation to term of
protection and the courts' narrow protection of the fair use exception.

Posner does acknowledge that films these days often cost hundreds
of millions of dollars to make, and concedes that they suffer from the problem
of being "copiable almost instantaneously and able to be both copied and
distributed almost costlessly". In respect of these he feels that the need
for copyright protection is comparable to that in the pharmaceutical industry.

On the other hand, Posner cites academic books and articles (apart
from textbooks) which are created as a by product of academic research as less
useful and therefore less worthy of protection. These works, he says, are
created by academics seeking to preserve their professional reputation and
would continue to be created even if afforded no copyright protection at all.
He goes on to say that "it is doubtful that there is any social benefit to
the copyrighting of academic work other than textbooks, which require a lot of
work and generally do not enhance the author's academic reputation and may
undermine it."

This blogger does not particularly agree with this analysis:
textbooks often do enhance an author's academic reputation. The exposure
afforded by publishing a textbook must be at least part of the reason that
textbooks are written, in addition to the revenue that they generate. To take
protection away from academic articles, when academics often rely on publishing
papers to make their research public, seems a little unfair on a group of professionals
that arguably does more for the public benefit that the film industry does. In
addition, academics rely on publication to enhance their reputations and so secure
grants for their research. Therefore although an academic may well publish in
order to "preserve his professional reputation", the net effect is to
fund further research.

Posner's two specific criticisms of copyright law are the duration
of protection and the fair use exception. In the US, most works are protected
by copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years. Posner says that:

"Apart from the fact that the present value of income
received so far in the future is negligible, obtaining copyright licenses on
very old works is difficult because not only is the author in all likelihood
dead, but his heirs or other owners of the copyright may be difficult or even
impossible to identify or find. The copyright term should be shorter."

The term of copyright protection has crept up over the years, and
it does seem illogical that a person should be protected so long after their
death. The creative industries would be far better served if works were to
become available earlier; in this day most authors are lucky if revenue from their
life's works see them through old age, let alone go on to provide a source of
income for their children.

Another consideration has to be computer-generated works: so many
works now are created electronically or by vast teams of people. Copyright
authorship rules accommodate that fact, however it hardly seems fair or
relevant that copyright should extend so far beyond the death of the author
when in fact the work took a whole team of people (or computers) to create.

Finally Posner considers fair use. He says that "the problem
is that the boundaries of fair use are ill defined, and copyright owners try to
narrow them as much as possible, insisting for example that even minute
excerpts from a film cannot be reproduced without a license." In his view,
because most works are built on previous existing works, this defence should
not be interpreted so narrowly. The US system does at least recognise that use
any work which is deemed to be fair should be permitted, which is more flexible
than fair dealing in the UK.

Posner finishes by saying that: "The need for reform is less
acute in copyright than in patent law, but it is sufficiently acute to warrant
serious attention from Congress and the courts." That copyright law should
receive serious attention from the top should not be in dispute. The real
question, is what should they do about it?

2 comments:

Hmmm. Some of Posner's critiques are from the Berne Convention. (E.g. Berne says duration of protection is author's life + 50...we obviously don't want to give less time than other net exporting IP countries have given, which is now life + 70). How is Congress going to revisit copyright law and give protections that are less than the minimum standards in Berne? Can't do that!

Search This Blog

Would you like to receive each post by email?

2,782 readers now receive The 1709 Blog by email circular. Why don't you join them? To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button

email:

Folllow us on Twitter

The 1709 Blog, and some of the choice comments of its blog team on copyright topics, can now be followed on Twitter at @1709Blog. When we last looked, we had 2,162 followers so, if you sign up, you won't be alone!